Corporate Governance in Different Countries

Corporate Governance in Different Countries Corporate Governance and theories Development of Corporate Government is a global occurrence. Different countries have different Theories in relevance and also depend on the stage of economic condition the country is in, the corporate structure of the country and the ownership groups present. It is also important to understand that not only shareholders but other stake holders are also involved wit a company and therefore emphasis should be given to other interest groups as well like employees, suppliers, customers and local communities (Christine A Mallin 2007). Theories associated with development of corporate governance Agency theory In the theory, there are two parties – principals and agents. Owners are considered Principal and director – agents. According to the theory due to self interest agents may not be working towards principals interest. In such cases the result may not be as expected by the principals or owners. A good corporate control is thus required to reduce agency problems and to keep control over directors actions. Transaction cost economies As firms desire to grow overtime, they need capital to expand. Often a firm raises a capital by going public or including other shareholders into the firms. As the owners in the company increase it is possible that the separation of ownership and control (which mostly remains in the hands of directors) may create problems. Stakeholder theory As discussed earlier, a firm has a member of stakeholders and is not just accountable to shareholders. If there are other stakeholders that need to be given emphasis then the governance system is developed accordingly. Corporate governance has only recently gained more importance and although agency theory was the main theory that led to its development, stakeholder theory is gaining more importance as it evolves further. It has been observed that good corporate governance have helped business perform better and provided better access to finances. Corporate Governance in UK Cadbury and Greenbury reports had a major contribution in UKs Corporate Governance. Cadbury Report (1992) â€Å"The Report of the committee on the financial aspects of corporate governance†, also known the Cadbury report, was published in December 1992. After 1980s financial scandals, a committee was formed in may 1991 by the financial reporting councils the London stock exchange and the accountancy profession. The committee worked in the financial aspects of corporate Governance and produced a code of Best Practice, which all UK listed companies related to director remuneration, responsibilities and tenure. Some of the recommendations were as follows. The majority of non-executive directors should be independent of management and free from business or other relationship. Non-executive directors should be appointed for the specified terms. Executive remuneration should be subject to the recommendation of a remuneration committee made up entirely or mainly of non – executive directors. Greenbury Report (1995) The rise of remuneration of directors and absence of necessary incentives for directors to perform better works a rising concern for investors and the public at large especially for listed firms. The Greenbury committee was thus established to address the above-mentioned issue. The committee submitted its report in 1995 and much of its findings were incorporated into the code of Best Practice on Directors Remuneration. The report addressed for major issues â€Å"The role addressed for major issues in setting the remuneration package for the CEO and other director. Service contracts - performance†. Hampel Report (1998) After the Greenbury report in 1995, a committee was established in 1996 to review and revise the earlier recommendations of the Cadbury and Greenbury committees. The committee recognized that it was important to understand the situation of each company and the principle of corporate government should be more flexible to be applicable to all companies. While Cadbury and Greenbury reports addressed the abuse of the discretionary authority entrusted to management, Hampel viewed the same to maximize the shareholder value. Combined Code (1998) The combined code was formed from recommendations of Cadbury, Greenbury and Hampel reports put together. It outlined the best practices, which were not mandatory for companies to provide sufficient information to the shareholders about its practices. Higgs Report The report was dedicated towards determining the role, independence and recruitment of non-executive directors. Higgs identified non-executive directors role contributing to corporate strategy, setting remuneration of executive directors, monitoring the performance of executive management et. And recommended that one third board should comprise of non-executive directors. Corporate Governance in Germany In Germany, most of the firms are either public or private limited that have shareholders who control the firm and its policies. Like many other European countries, in Germany there are a number of shareholders in a firm. Both financial and non financial investors hold considerable shares in a firm and are the most influential people. It is therefore important to take into consideration these cross-holdings that investors have when analysing the corporate governance in Germany. According to Charkham (1994), banks have considerable investment in large firms and therefore play a central role in determining the corporate policies of the firm. Banks provide long term loans to the firms and develop long term relationship with the firms in the course of time. Due to these facts the corporate governance in Germany can also be called an ‘insider system (Charkahm, 1994). The German corporate governance has a dual board system comprising of a management board and a supervisory board. The management board handles the day to day activities of the firm and is responsible for management of the whole firm. The supervisory board on the other hand is responsible for appointing the directors in the management board, supervising them and deciding their remuneration. The supervisory board also advices the management board on various aspects of business. According to Charkham (1994), â€Å" if there were a spectrum with ‘confrontation at one end and ‘co-operation at the other, we would definitely place German attitudes and behaviour far closer to the co-operation end than, say, those of British or Americans.† (Charkham, 1994) What Charkham (1994) indicated was how close the shareholders in German firms are to its operations and the interests of different stakeholders are given equal emphasis. This is supported by the Works Constitution Act 1972, according to which work council has the right to deal with employee matters and conditions of work. This is done to improve trust of the employees in the organisation by keeping them informed about companys activities and allowing them to participate in the decisions of the company that may have effects on the workers. However the first corporate governance code, Cromme code, was first published in 2002 as discussed in the next section. Cromme Code (2002) A committee chaired by Dr Gerhard Cromme was assigned the task to submit a report on corporate governance. The committee submitted the Cromme Report, also know as the Cromme Code, which was published in 2002 and has a number of sections that provide guidelines about different aspects of corporate governance. Later in 2005 there some amendments made to the code. Some of the sections that Cromme Code covered are: General Meetings and shareholders According to this section of the code, it is required by the companies to submit annual reports and other financial statements in the general meeting. The meeting decides how the net income has to be disclosed and whether the decision made by the management and the supervisory boards are appropriate and approved. The code also requires the firms to publish these on their website, with any other agenda for public transparency. Co-operation between the Management Board and the Supervisory Board The management board being the set of directors who actually run the company operations, and the supervisory board being the one that advises and sets goals for the management board, it is important that the two boards co-operate with each other. The code therefore suggests that the management board should report its activities to the supervisory board so that the companys strategic approach is rightly followed. The management board can seek guidance of the supervisory board in case of any issue and should look to report these immediately. The supervisory board on the other hand should monitor the progress of the management board and check if the duties assigned to management board are being performed effectively and if there are any changes to be made into them. If there is any deviation from the Cromme Code then it is the duty of the management board and the supervisory board to mention them in the annual report explaining why such deviations had occurred. The company has to keep t hese details available for public viewing for atleast five years. Management Board The management board is set up by the supervisory board, and it is required as per the code to report these notes in the accounts. In case of any difference in the interest of the management board and the supervisory board, it should be immediately conveyed to the supervisory board. This is important so that management board can work independently and in the best interests of the company. The code also mentions that the remuneration of the management board should consist of both fixed salary and variable salary, as in many companies where variable salary is based on performance of the firm. Supervisory Board The supervisory board has the responsibility to determine the composition of the management board and monitoring of the management board. It is therefore important that the supervisory board has suitable knowledge, experience and ability to make good management board and set good targets. Not only this a good supervisory board can provide good guidance to the management board. The code suggests that the supervisory should be independent and not related to the management board so as to avoid any conflict of interests. The code also forbids the chairman of the management board to become the chairman of the supervisory board. The code also states that the management board directors cannot be in the supervisory board of more than 5 non group listed companies. The remuneration of the directors in the supervisory board can contain both fixed and performance related pay and needs to be disclosed n the annual report as well. The remuneration can be determined in the general meeting or in the articles of association. The Cromme Code has an important requirement that if supervisory board take part in less than half of the meetings in a fiscal year then it has to be mentioned in the supervisory board report. Transparency The code requires the management board to disclose any information or fact that might affect the company operations and not known to the public. This is so as to keep all shareholders equally informed about the companys facts. Disclosure should be made through media which is accessible in time to the public. Reporting and Audit of the Financial Resources In order to avoid any fabrication of the reports the code requires the supervisory board or the audit committee to obtain a statement from the auditor clarifying that there is no financial or any other relation between the firm and the auditor that can affect auditors independence. According to the amendments, from 2006 onwards, it is important for the companies to disclose all elements of the directors remuneration. However, if 75 percent of the shareholders feel that further disclosure is not required then the firm can chose to do so. It can be said that the corporate governance code in Germany has provided great emphasis on serving the interests of various stakeholders. Corporate Governance in India Government had set new reforms introduced in India after the economic downturn in 1990-91 to open up the economy to depend on market mechanisms instead of the government. With the new reforms the committee Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), which became the regulator of the securities market aimed at transforming the public sector and the banking sector in line with international norms. As the disclosure requirements were introduced to safeguard the interests of shareholders these markets were altered. After the economic downturn in India during 1990 – 91, Indian government introduced new reforms to open the economy to rely more on the market mechanisms instead of the government. The new reforms were mainly aimed at making the public sector more efficient. There were also reforms in the banking sector to bring India in line with international norms, and in the securities market, with the new committee Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) becoming the regulator of the securities market. The securities market was altered as disclosure requirements were introduced to safeguard shareholders interests. Kar (2001) mentions how â€Å" foreign portfolio investment was permitted in India since 1992 and foreign institutional investors also began to play an important role in the institutionalization of the market†. India has a range of business, including the public limited companies listed in the stock exchange, private companies and foreign companies. Main ownership of the companies is difficult to determine as there are very few studies in this area but we can say that after the economy opened up after 1990-91, institutional investors are gaining more shares of the market. The Confederation of Indian Industries published a ‘Desirable Code of Corporate Governance in 1998 and many companies took the recommendation of the committee on board. Still there are many companies that have poor governance practices which has led to the concerns about financial reporting practices, their accountability to losses being suffered by investors and the resultant loss of confidence that this caused. A recent example of Satyam Computers proves this that still there are companies, which are not following the Code of Corporate Governance. SEBI formally established the Committee on Corporate Governance in May 1999, chaired by Shri Kumar Mangalam Birla. The report of the Kumar Mangalam Birla Committee on Corporate Governance was published in 2000. The report emphasizes the importance of corporate governance for future growth of the economy and the capital market. Three key aspects underlying corporate governance are defined as accountability, transparency, and equality of treatment for all stakeholders in terms of information. The recommendations of the SEBI are split into mandatory requirements, which are essential for effective corporate governance, and non-mandatory requirements. Board of Directors Board in Indian companies should comprise of the Executive Directors and Non-Executive Directors and Independent Directors. The code recommends not less than 50 percent of the board should be comprised of the Non-Executive Directors, where there is a non-executive chairman, and at least one-third of the board should comprise independent directors, where there is an executive chairman, and finally at least half the board should be independent, the latter being mandatory. Nominee Directors The Indian system allows nominee directors appointed by the financial or investment institutions to protect their investment in the company. Such directors should have the same responsibility as other directors and be accountable to the shareholders. Chairman of the Board The roles of the chairman and the chief executive are different, the code identifies the roles as related and may be combined and performed by one person. Audit Committee The audit committee has many mandatory recommendations, like the committee should comprise at least three members, all of them being the non-executive directors. The audit committee is empowered to seek external advice as appropriate and to seek information from any employee. Remuneration Committee Remuneration committee is set up to decide on the remuneration of the executive directors. Committee should be comprised of at least three non-executive, chaired by an independent director. All the remuneration package of the directors must be disclosed in the annual report with details on all the elements including the fixed salary and performance based incentives. Another mandatory requirement is that the board of directors must decide on the remuneration package of the non-executive directors. Board Procedures Board Meetings should be held a minimum of 4 times in a year with a maximum of 4 months between two meetings and that a director must not be involved in more than 10 committees or act as a chairman in more than 5 committees. Management Management should ensure smooth day – to – day activities of the company. There should be disclosure of the companys performance, position and other things of interest to shareholders in the annual report. Shareholders Shareholders are allowed to be able to participate in the annual general meeting, therefore whenever there is a new appointment of a director it must be in the knowledge of the shareholders about the same. Manner of Implementation Companies must have a separate section on Corporate Governance in its annual report. Non-compliance of any recommendations should be highlighted and explained. The Indian code is rather complex as compared to UK and Germany as it has a number of mandatory and non-mandatory recommendations in its code. Although India has good recommendations on corporate governance code but still the acceptance of code in many companies is still lagging. Roles, Duties, Responsibilities and Liabilities of Directors Functions of Directors In 1844 an Act in Parliament described directors as ‘ the persons having direction, conduct, management or superintendence of a companys affairs. (Alfred Read) described director as a special kind of agent, whose function is to control the companys affairs. The directors in a company have certain responsibilities at law, which they must perform efficiently and effectively. In large organisations the major role of the board is to set the context of the strategy and not to formulate the strategy. To accomplish this, the board must keep on reviewing the corporate definition ‘what business are we in. This can be done by assessing and reviewing strategic proposals and changing them by giving comment and advice on the same, by encouraging managers to work on their strategic aims. The results of these sets the standards of the organisation as well as the standards others have to attain. Another challenge for the directors in an organisation is to balance the powers of managers w ith accountability to the shareholders. The board of directors act as the internal mechanism for control to overcome the principal agent problem. Directors also help in acquiring critical resources and responding to environmental forces and their impact on the organisation. These were however how the roles were perceived in the 1970s and after a number of highly publicised cases of corporate fraud and failure there has been a strong focus on policy issues. According to the Companies Act 2006, the duties of the directors have been identified seven-folds. These have been formulated to keep the acts of the directors in the interest of the company they serve and their shareholders. It is quite interesting how the roles and duties are slowly being more specifically defined and the need of the directors to comply with these by enforcing these into the Company Act. The Company Director His Functions, Powers and Duties by Alfred Read, Jordan Sons Limited, London, 1971 Safeguarding the Shareholders An important function of the board is to ensure that the interests of the members are properly safeguarded. If saving and investment are to play their proper part in the future, the investor must be assured of fair treatment and an adequate return, and it is for the directors to ensure that, so far as is consistent with the circumstances, he is not disappointed. Take Over Bids The function of the board in safeguarding the interests of shareholders is of particular importance in take-over situations. The general rule regarding the exercise of directors powers applies that the interests of their company must be their paramount consideration. It follows that the directors of a company, when advising their shareholders whether to accept or reject an offer for their shares, must disregard the effect he take-over will have on their own personal positions. Ensuring Progress Another function is that of ensuring that the operations of the company are kept under constant review so that changes which are necessary are made without delay when changes take place in public taste or in political and economic conditions. Checking Up on Progress A board must check up on results in order to ensure that the policy that has been laid down is being carried out and that the results expected from it have been obtained. Proper statements should be presented to the directors at regular intervals to keep them informed of what is happening. Powers of Directors The duty of the board is to see that the business is carried in accordance with the memorandum and articles of association. While some powers may be reserved for shareholders, some powers can only be exercised by the board of directors. Often the directors are given power to declare and pay interim dividends during the year if in their opinion the profits of the company justify them. It is also usual for the fixed dividends on preference shares to be authorized by the board. Other powers usually vested in the board are the allotment of shares, the making of calls, the forfeiture of shares for non-payment o calls, the appointment of the chairman and of agents, officers and servants of the company and all matters of policy and management which are of special importance. Also the directors may delegate any of their powers to committees consisting of such members of their body as they think fit; any committee so formed shall in the exercise of the powers so delegated conform to any regulations that may be imposed on it by the directors. Remuneration of Directors Salary has traditionally been described as a word that represents as monthly income of an individual. Directors Remuneration has been a major concern for investors for long. It is observed that directors remuneration has some or most elements of the following: Basic Salary Benefits in Kind Annual Bonus Share Options Pension Rights Basic Salary Basic Salary is a fixed part of the salary that directors get. The basic is generally in the range that similar jobs are offered. Individual experience, skills, and commitment also form an important factor of determining the basic salary. It is also important for the company to analyze skills, and job security related to the individual while setting the basic pay. Benefits in Kind Certain companies provide the directors with some benefits in kind. For example provision of goods, travel and luxury items are some kinds of benefits given to the directors of the company. It is however important that the remuneration committee keeps a close check on such benefits and reviews them periodically, annually provided to improve executive performance. Annual Bonuses Annual bonuses are given based on the performance of company or division. It is mostly a variable form of remuneration and is generally a percentage of basic pay. Annual bonuses can act as motivation for directors to improve their performance. It is therefore important that the remuneration committee sets the good performance targets for the directors. Long Term Incentive Schemes (Share Options) Executive share option is a long-term incentive scheme that has been used by companies for long. Share Options are provided at a lower price than that in the market or at some future date at current prices. This is a factor used to align directors and shareholders interests. The directors thus would want the share prices to go up so as to benefit from the returns from their holdings. However, the directors may sell off their shares and loose interest in share prices thereafter. In UK a provision in the code C6, limits directors to exercise their share options, for at least three years. This is done to keep directors interest in the share prices high for at least that period. A benefit for share options is that it is not taxed until the shares are sold and thus provide the directors a non-taxed form of investment for a specified period. Pension Rights â€Å"Pension Entitlements are a key element in the total Remuneration, with important longer term implications for the individual and the company† (Greenbury, 1995). The pension provision is carefully considered by the remuneration committees, and is measured in terms of the value of pension entitlements earned during the year. (As written in proposal needs more changes but not sure of the books from where it was written) Remuneration can be defined as the aim to reward people fairly, consistently and equitably in accordance to their value to the organization. The impact of executive remuneration on the efficiency of the company can be explained with many different theories. Other policies and theories on effective remuneration, like theory of Human Motivation, are based on the need for stability and sustained staff commitment. Also there are surveyed and comparable pay market for different grades and specialists. Remuneration also depends on the pay structure practice in comparable organizations. Members of board of directors who are not the employees or major shareholders are paid for their services as directors of the company. In the past directors compensation was relatively dependent on the number of hours they devoted to the company but according to the new federal law a new sense of public outrage has appeared and a new fear of shareholder litigation has caused directors to work even harder as before and hence many of the determinants have changed since then.

American History: Emerson and Whitman

In a democracy Emerson wrote that man does not buy his rights and pay for his privileges. He has every right to speak up on an issue and does not need to pay the government to do so. Likewise he does not need to pay to cast his vote in an election. In a democracy man observes rules because doing so is the proper thing. He can not buy his way out to be exempted from obeying laws. The young will benefit from the fruits of democracy because the old shall have had their time.If the youth is able to use their God-given gift of â€Å"piquancy and charm† they would make the older generation â€Å"very unnecessary. † They would know how to take care of themselves and secure their future. Democracy for Whitman is where people are able to go about their daily lives without fear, â€Å"the machinist rolls up his sleeves, the policeman travels his beat, and the gatekeeper marks who pass. † Obviously, the people are the ones who enjoy the fruits of democracy as it allows them to pursue their business in the best and legal means without doing harm to others.According to Emerson it is easier to conform or to adapt to what the collective society stands for, but to be truly independent one must hold on to what he believes in despite overwhelming opposition. He has only his conscience to trust as to what is right and what is wrong. This attitude is what will spell the big difference â€Å"between greatness and meanness. † Whitman was more poetic in his take of independence. He said that it is when one has the â€Å"best of time and space, was never measured and will never be measured.† It meant that when a man is given the opportunity to do what he wanted, given the freedom to use it the way he thought fit is Whitman’s take on independence. Emerson believed that for man to be self-reliant he must first know himself, love his strengths and accept his weaknesses. While nature abounds with what can feed, clothe, and shelter man, he must tap and work on them by his own sweat or labor. Man is so endowed by God that there is nothing he can not do if he tries. Whitman likened self-reliance to travel. He showed a friend what there is to see in places near and far, and the road to take.The analogy could very well mean life in general. He can only be with the friend at some point but the rest will be up to the friend. He told his friend that â€Å"he must travel it for himself. † In life there are questions which answers â€Å"he must find out for yourself. † On cultural independence, Emerson challenged old traditions of the Church, to obey without question. He maintained that it was one’s conscience that he must listen to and not dead institutions and irrelevant societies. Whitman had a different approach with institutions, he was more for maintaining the status quo.Whitman wrote, â€Å"I accept reality and dare not question it, materialism first and last imbuing. † As for the spirit of social ex perimentation, Emerson opposed philanthropies of giving college grants, building half-way homes, alms-giving and organizing charities to the undeserving and regrets every cent and dollar doled out, despite the â€Å"obligation to put all poor men in good situations. † As for the issue of the slavery and the plight of the Blacks in Africa, Emerson said that â€Å"love afar is spite at home. He was for ensuring the welfare of one’s own before one can be so concerned with those of others.As for Whitman he welcomed, fed and cared for a runaway slave. He treated everyone equally, be they â€Å"the wicked or the righteous. † Emerson was among the American Transcendentalists and Romanticists from New England, who believed in the power of the mind which God had use to reveal the truth. He listened to the â€Å"voice of the mind. † Whitman was a Romantic writer especially with his association of the commonplace to Nature, like â€Å"the grass is itself a child, the produced babe of the vegetation. † Emerson approached Nature in the context of Man.He referred to â€Å"the nonchalance of boys as a healthy attitude of human nature,† and â€Å"pretty oracles nature yields us are the face and behavior of children, babes and brutes. † Whitman did not separate man, animals, the grass, the flowers, the fishes and the birds as he treats them all as Nature. He told of the activities of each without distinction of man and animal, bird or fish, flower or grass, â€Å"the wolverine sets traps, the young fellow drives the express wagon, the wild gander leads his pack. † Works Cited Emerson, R. W. â€Å"Self-Reliance. † Whitman, W. â€Å"Song of Myself. †

Language Of Race Essay

(Review of Lawrence Blum, â€Å"I’m Not a Racist, But†¦Ã¢â‚¬ : The Moral Quandary of Race (Ithaca; Cornell University Press, 2002). Theory and Research in Education 1(3), pp. 267-281. ) Lawrence Blum’s book, â€Å"I’m Not a Racist, But†¦Ã¢â‚¬ : The Moral Quandary of Race, is excellent and thought-provoking. It is a model of moral philosophy done well, and, as importantly, done with a purpose. At no point does one wonder, as one does with all too much moral philosophy these days, â€Å"Why does this matter? † Blum makes it clear from the start why we should care about the language and concepts of race and racism, and he does a brilliant job of integrating careful philosophical analysis with contemporary examples, historical explication, and creative thought experiments. Blum’s purpose is basically two-fold: first, to fight against racism and racial injustice by proving that the notion of â€Å"race† is both descriptively false and morally inimical and replacing it with the more accurate and useful notion of â€Å"racialized group†; and second, to enable and promote productive dialogue about racism and racial inequality, especially between members of different racialized groups. He is explicit only about the second of these aims — as he comments in the preface and reiterates in similar terms throughout the book, â€Å"If we agree that racism is so important, don’t we need to know what it is? How can we talk intelligently, especially across racial lines, unless we do? † (p. viii) — but the first aim clearly determines the structure and content especially of the second half of the book. In both cases, Blum suggests that language is a key: we can both move forward in the fight against racial injustice and promote cross-racial dialogue about racism and other racial ills, he suggests, if we analyze and clarify what we mean by certain words that are often used too loosely (such as â€Å"racist† and â€Å"racial 2 discrimination†); recapture other terms that have inappropriately been divested of moral weight (such as â€Å"racial insensitivity† and â€Å"prejudice†); and abandon the language of â€Å"race† altogether because its history of use has made it inherently misleading. This is the primary thrust of the book. In this essay, I will question Blum’s emphasis on language and naming. I will suggest that disagreements about the racial language we use, such as about â€Å"what racism is,† are integral elements of the debate about race and racial injustice, rather than something that can and should be resolved ahead of time. Although Blum characterizes his analysis of racial language as being merely clarificatory, therefore, and designed to advance cross-racial dialogue from the outside, as it were, I will argue that instead he is doing something far different. At best, he is staking a partisan position within the debate itself; at worst, he is cutting it off from the start by building the answers to most of the important questions about racism and racial discrimination into his definitions. In addition to these methodological concerns, I also will query the practical results of implementing the linguistic shifts Blum proposes. I will argue, first, that implementation of â€Å"racialized group†-talk will be harder than Blum suggests (even among people who fully accept his arguments and are willing and even eager to abandon â€Å"race† in favor of â€Å"racialized group†), and second, that it is unlikely to have the social psychological effects Blum predicts. In both of these cases, I will consider teachers’ practices in implementing anti-racist curricula as an important test case, since teachers (along with parents and the media) play a crucial role in shaping the racial language and attitudes of the next generation. i Before I tackle these issues, however, a brief summary of (and a couple of quibbles with) â€Å"I’m Not a Racist, But†¦Ã¢â‚¬  are in order. 3 Blum establishes the moral and conceptual grounding for his project in his first and longest chapter, â€Å"‘Racism’: Its Core Meaning. † In this chapter, Blum provides a deft historical, moral, and conceptual analysis of â€Å"racist† and â€Å"racism. † He is concerned to construct a definition that preserves the strong moral opprobrium that attaches to â€Å"racism† while avoiding the â€Å"conceptual inflation,† â€Å"moral overload,† and â€Å"categorical drift† that have come to characterize the terms â€Å"racism† and â€Å"racist† — i. e. , the indiscriminate application of these terms to a wide variety of categories (such as motives, beliefs, acts, and people) encompassing any and all â€Å"racial ills† from bigotry to prejudice to racial discomfort, as well as even to non-racial ills such as discrimination based on age, religion, nationality, or physical appearance. By contrast, Blum limits the application of â€Å"racism† to things stemming specifically from antipathy and/or an inferiorizing attitude toward a racial group. He shows why antipathy and inferiorizing are both sufficient and necessary to his definition — for example, one may feel benevolent toward blacks in part because one feels superior to them, but feel antipathetic toward Asians because one assumes they are smarter than oneself; both attitudes would be properly classified as racist, and he argues persuasively that all other examples of racism could fit into one or both of these broad categories. Hence, Blum shows, although racism can be attributed to motives, acts, people, symbols, beliefs, images, epithets, remarks, attitudes, individuals, societies, and institutions (all categories that Blum discusses in detail), each attribution must be independently justified; one cannot just assume that a person who displays a racist symbol, for example, is a racist herself, or even that she necessarily has racist motives. In this respect, Blum is sensitive to the mitigating (although still morally suspect) issues of individual ignorance, unreflective adoption of social norms and behaviors, and unconscious attitudes, any of which may cause an individual to appear but not to be racist, or alternatively to be racist in fact, but to have adopted these racist attitudes 4 subconsciously or even unconsciously. ii Finally, in this chapter Blum gives significant attention not just to racism’s definition but also to its particular moral character. He argues that racism is morally evil not just because it violates â€Å"general moral norms† such as equality, respect, and good will, but also because of its â€Å"integral tie† to historical â€Å"race-based systems of oppression† that were clearly evil. â€Å"‘ Racism’ draws its moral valence from this historical context in two ways. First, the mere fact that these historical systems were based on race provides some of that opprobrium, even if current instances of racism no longer take place in the direct context of, for example, segregation, apartheid, or slavery. . . . [S]econd . . . we continue to live with the legacy of those systems† (Blum 2002: 27-8). In chapter 2, Blum asks â€Å"Can Blacks Be Racist? † and answers in the affirmative. No matter what preconditions one places on racism (e. g. that it must be ideologically embedded, or combined with social power), Blum argues, there will be (and are) some black people (as well as members of other minority groups) who meet these criteria and hence must be judged to be racist. Insofar as the denial that blacks can be racist is motivated by a desire to highlight the inherent inequalities among different racist acts and beliefs, however, Blum would agree — and argues that — there are important â€Å"moral asymmetries† in racism. Because of such acts’ â€Å"historical resonance† (p. 44), â€Å"greater power to shame† due to minorities’ positional inferiority (p.46), reflection of on-going patterns and prevalence of racism (p. 48), and contribution to maintaining â€Å"systematic racial injustice† (p. 49), â€Å"Everything else being equal, greater moral opprobrium rightly attaches to racism by whites against people of color than the reverse. This is the most important moral asymmetry in racism† (pp. 43-4). Chapter 3 catalogues â€Å"Varieties of Racial Ills,† which are acts or attitudes that deserve some (often substantial) degree of moral condemnation but do not rise to the level of â€Å"racism† as 5 such. These include racial insensitivity, racial ignorance, racial discomfort, white privilege,exclusionary same-race socializing, and racialism (a term used here to mean â€Å"conferring too much, or inappropriate, importance on people’s racial identity† (p. 59), but which Blum confusingly reuses with a different meaning in chapters 5-9). Chapter 4 then moves into an extremely careful and thoughtful discussion of â€Å"Racial Discrimination and Color Blindness. † He deduces four reasons that discrimination may be wrong: â€Å"(1) it unfairly excludes a qualified individual on the basis of a characteristic irrelevant to the task for which selection is being made; (2) it is done out of prejudice; (3) the prejudice is pervasive and (for that or other reasons) stigmatizing; (4) the discrimination helps to sustain the group whose members are discriminated against in a subordinate position† (p. 89). Hence, he argues, the term â€Å"racial discrimination,† which automatically carries with it the implication of moral condemnation, should be confined â€Å"to forms of discrimination involving race that either stem from race-based prejudiced [sic] or that disadvantage an inferiorized or stigmatized group† (p. 95). In contrast, he argues, forms of racial differentiation that avoid the four pitfalls listed above may be tolerated or even embraced: for example, racial egalitarianism, which does rely to some extent on racial differentiation but not on discrimination as defined above, is preferable to color blindness. Chapters 5-7 form an undesignated second section of â€Å"I’m Not a Racist, But†¦Ã¢â‚¬ , focusing specifically on the concept, history, and science of â€Å"race† in order to debunk it. Blum analyzes the empirical outcomes of thinking in racial terms in chapter 5, â€Å"‘Race’: What We Mean and What We Think We Mean. † He identifies four moral dangers of racial thinking: (1) â€Å"a moral distance among those of different races — an intensified consciousness of a ‘we’ of one race counterposed to a ‘they’ of another† (p. 102); (2) the â€Å"imposition of false commonality on all those classified as members of the same race† (p. 103); (3) the suggestion of â€Å"an inescapable 6 ‘racial fate’† (p. 104); and (4) â€Å"associations of superiority and inferiority of value† (p. 104). These lead into chapter 6’s fascinating discussion of â€Å"‘Race’: A Brief History, with Moral Implications,† in which Blum shows the historical contingency and relatively recent vintage of racial thinking, at least in the West. (Although Blum’s language about race’s recent arrival on the scene is fairly global, his examples are almost entirely confined to ancient Greece and Rome, Europe, and North America; this leaves the reader a bit confused about the intended scope of his historical analysis and claims. ) Finally, chapter 7 boldly asks, â€Å"Do Races Exist? † and marshals a fair amount of scientific evidence (in conjunction with the historical evidence from chapter 6) to answer a resounding â€Å"no. † This outright rejection of race sets up the challenge he confronts in the final two chapters (and unstated third section) of the book: how simultaneously to rid ourselves of the inimical concept of â€Å"race† while still promoting the causes of racial justice and equality — causes which, as Blum showed in chapter 4, require for their achievement that we name and pay attention (as opposed to blind ourselves) to differences among racial groups. iii In chapter 8, â€Å"Racialized Groups and Social Constructions,† therefore, Blum proposes to replace the concept of â€Å"races† with â€Å"racialized groups,† arguing, â€Å"The term ‘racialized groups’ is preferable as a way of acknowledging that some groups have been created by being treated as if they were races, while also acknowledging that ‘race’ in its popular meaning is entirely false† (p. 160). Blum further justifies use of the term â€Å"racialized groups† in chapter 9, â€Å"Should We Try to Give Up Race? † He argues that racial justice and even a positive sense of racial identity can be promoted by â€Å"racialization†: â€Å"its recognition supplies a more accurate understanding of the character of the racialized social order, encourages a stronger recognition of commonalities of experience and of political and moral commitments across ‘racial’ lines, and, arguably, would in the long run be 7 more politically effective in mitigating racism and racial injustice than would a belief in the reality of race† (p. 170). But Blum recognizes that merely transforming our language is not enough; this act will not itself transform the unjust social structures that inform and shape our language: â€Å"In the real world, ridding ourselves of the myth of race can not be severed from the politically more challenging task of changing the structural relationships among racial groups† (p. 178). Hence, he concludes by implicitly urging a two-pronged approach to promoting racial justice and equality: altering our language, on the one hand, and engaging in direct social action (especially integrationism), on the other. Critique I find most of Blum’s arguments compelling taken on an individual basis. â€Å"I’m Not a Racist, But†¦Ã¢â‚¬  convinces me that the term â€Å"racism† should be reserved for race-related, morally egregious beliefs/motives/acts/etc. , that there’s a wide range of racial ills, that pursuit of racial equality does not amount to racial discrimination, that â€Å"race† is a morally inimical concept, and that â€Å"racialized group† better captures the historical genesis and conceptual construction we call â€Å"race. † I am not convinced, however, that these arguments taken together satisfy the central articulated aim of the book: namely, to promote cross-racial dialogue about race. This is not, as I’ve said, because I question his reasoning or his conclusions; rather, I question whether his method, of using substantive moral philosophy, is consonant with this aim. First, some reminders about Blum’s stated aim. As I noted at the beginning of this essay, Blum asks in the preface of â€Å"I’m Not a Racist, But†¦Ã¢â‚¬ , â€Å"If we agree that racism is so important, don’t we need to know what it is? How can we talk intelligently, especially across racial lines, unless we do? . . . . We need to clarify what racism is, to find a basis in history and current use 8 for fixing a definition† (p. viii). He reiterates this concern at the beginning of chapter 2: â€Å"My goal of an adequate account of racism is entirely antithetical to race-based attachment to definitions of ‘racism. ’ I am seeking an account that will facilitate communication between groups about the character, forms and extent of racism (and other race-related ills). For that we need some agreement on what racism is, and from there we can attempt to settle differences about its extent† (p. 35). Blum’s aim is clearly to establish a baseline for discussion — to foster productive communication by providing moral and conceptual clarification and then to get out of the way in order to allow the now â€Å"intelligent† and â€Å"facilitated† debate to proceed on its own. This is an admirable goal, but I don’t think that â€Å"I’m Not a Racist, But†¦Ã¢â‚¬  achieves it — nor do I think that it could achieve it in its current form. This is so for a few reasons. First, it is misleading to suggest that moral philosophy is necessary to fix a definition of â€Å"racism. † So long as there’s an agreement, or at least mutual comprehension among the interlocutors, as to what each person means in using various terms, then that is sufficient to promote dialogue. For example, if all people accepted that only whites could be racist, then â€Å"cross-racial dialogue† could proceed on that basis; there’s no reason that Blum’s definition of racism (which asserts that all people can be racist) is necessary to promote dialogue. Of course, one of Blum’s implicit points is that there isn’t agreement about what racism is, and that such agreement, or even mutual clarification and comprehension, is very unlikely to arise on its own. Rather than revealing a troubling weakness or gap in the discussion, however, this reveal instead the essential nature of the debate about race and racism: namely, that debating the meaning of these terms is part and parcel of debating the things themselves. In other words, fixing a definition is not a neutral act. It is a partisan act. This is because much of the dispute about racism is bound up in how one defines the problem. If individuals unintentionally benefit 9 from the legacy of racism (e. g.via â€Å"white privilege†), are they morally responsible in some way? Is it racially discriminatory for an association serving mostly Latino youth to try to hire mostly Latino staff? Is it racist for a small business owner to hire people she â€Å"feels comfortable† with, if it turns out she tends to feel comfortable only with people from her own racialized group, since that’s among whom she grew up? These questions lie at the heart of the â€Å"conversation about race†; they cannot and should not be settled ahead of time. Thus, Blum’s second methodological mistake is to think that setting a neutral baseline for discussion is even possible. Blum’s approach is inevitably partisan — simply in trying to clarify meanings, he takes stances on a number of controversial issues — and hence he is within rather than above the fray. This is perfectly appropriate — taking and defending particular stances about how we ought to live our lives is what moral philosophy is, or at least should be, about — but it is not what Blum professes to be doing. Furthermore, Blum’s approach is at least partly opposed to his stated aim of promoting cross-racial dialogue about race and racism, insofar as to the extent that readers accept Blum’s positions as given, their avenues for debate about race and racism will be cut off rather than expanded. I hope (and expect) instead that readers will be drawn to engage with and debate the arguments themselves, as any good work of social and moral philosophy should inspire people to do; they do not, however, provide a neutral starting point for others’ conversations. iv My concerns about the match between Blum’s stated objective and the content of his book are irrelevant to my assessment of his arguments or his conclusions, most of which I think are generally on target. I do wonder, however, about the concrete, â€Å"on the ground† implications of his conclusions, especially but not solely for those responsible for educating the next generation. I will address two especially pressing questions: (1) How would one use the 10 language of â€Å"racialized groups† in a way that was clearly distinct from using the language of race, especially in institutional contexts? (2) Is there convincing psychological evidence to support Blum’s claims about the results of redescribing social and identity groups? For example, is there convincing evidence that thinking of oneself as being a member of a socially constructed racialized group has more positive psychological effects than thinking of oneself as a member of a biologically-determined race? These questions raise issues that are significant for assessing the practical import of Blum’s arguments in general; they are also crucial for determining how his conclusions would alter anti-racist curricula and pedagogy in the classroom, which presumably will be central to the realization of Blum’s moral philosophy. First, Blum’s claim that we can combat racism (at least to some extent) by altering our language about race has moral purchase only if there is some way to â€Å"operationalize† — and especially to institutionalize — this linguistic adjustment. Blum seems to acknowledge this, and to be optimistic about its potential: â€Å"Appreciating the difference between race and racialization, and at the same time attempting to do justice to the unreality of race and the reality of racism, may point us toward new ways of thinking and new forms of institutional practice† (p. 166). He gives one (and only one) example of how one might adopt â€Å"new forms of institutional practice† in relation to the Census, which is a key tool for tracking racial patterns and disparities in society — but also hence for seeming to legitimate racial categorization. In response to this dilemma, Blum suggests, â€Å"Were the federal government to encourage a broad understanding that the purposes for which the Census is now explicitly used do not require a commitment to the existence of races in any form, but only to racialized groups, the legitimate discrimination- monitoring function of Census racial categories could be severed from any implication of racialism† (p. 167). But then frustratingly, Blum gives no specifics about how the Census could 11 do this. Would Blum hope for a statement of disavowal of race? If so, where? Just in the preamble (which already includes a â€Å"baby step† in that direction (see p. 227, fn. 11)), which nobody reads? Or in the census itself, which seems impractical since it is intentionally kept as short as possible in order to maximize response rates? Instead of a statement of disavowal, the Census could replace â€Å"What is this person’s race? † (the question currently asked) with â€Å"What is this person’s racialized group? †, and then use quotation marks (or â€Å"scare quotes†) around terms such as â€Å"black,† â€Å"Spanish/Latino/Hispanic† (which is currently kept separate from the â€Å"race† question), and â€Å"white† to reinforce their constructed status. This is also unsatisfactory, however, for two reasons. First, â€Å"racialized group† will likely be either greeted with confusion or treated as a synonym of â€Å"race,† especially in the absence of an explanation of the term; in the latter case, it is likely to end up acquiring the separatist, hierarchical, and essentialist connotations or â€Å"race† (just like â€Å"disabled† and even â€Å"differently abled† acquired those of the maligned term â€Å"handicapped† they were designed to replace). Second, many of the choices given are not (yet) â€Å"racialized groups,† at least not in the United States, but are nationalities: Samoan, Filipino, Native Hawaiian, Asian Indian, Japanese. Should these terms all be in scare quotes? I would think not — but then how would one deal with the presence of scare quotes some places and their absence others? One could add â€Å"nationality and/or ethnicity† to the â€Å"racialized group† question, and then surround everything with quotation marks — but this then gets cumbersome, to say the least, and is likely to raise other dilemmas. As the Census example shows, institutionalizing â€Å"racialized group† language is hard in print, particularly when it comes to naming and labeling the racialized groups themselves (â€Å"black,† â€Å"white,† â€Å"Vietnamese,† â€Å"Native American†). It is substantially harder in conversation, 12 such as in the oral give-and-take of a classroom. Consider Ellen, a teacher of ten and eleven year-olds, who is eager to incorporate anti-racist education into her teaching. Ellen reads â€Å"I’m Not a Racist, But†¦Ã¢â‚¬  over the winter holiday and then sits down to revise her January lesson plans, which include a unit on non-violent protest designed both to fit into the school’s conflict resolution initiative and to lead up to the celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. ’s birthday. As she reads over her plans, she quickly inserts a mini-lesson on â€Å"racialized group† at the beginning of the unit and converts â€Å"race† to â€Å"racialized group† throughout the unit. She adds in a two-day lesson called â€Å"What is Racism? †, and develops an interactive group activity for near the end of the unit designed to help students decide when it’s okay to refer to or take someone’s racialized group membership into account and when it’s not. Reviewing her social studies lessons on Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr. , and the March on Washington, D. C. , she is pleased. She also thinks her English lesson on an excerpt of King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail will prove challenging but inspiring to her students. But then Ellen suddenly gets worried. Throughout her lessons are references to blacks, whites, Indians, British, Hindus, Christians, Jews. Which of these are racialized groups and which are not? How can she help her students figure out the difference? How can she talk about â€Å"blacks† and â€Å"whites† to her class without her students falling back into racial thinking? She can hand-signal scare quotes each time, but will that just turn into a joke among the students? And which groups would she use the hand signals for? All of these concerns are predicated on the conclusion that language matters — that it influences how we think, reason, behave, and interact with one another. This brings us to my second question about implications of Blum’s conclusions: is there social psychological evidence in favor of them? Throughout the book, Blum clearly operates on the assumption that if people recognize the socially constructed, rather than biologically inherent, nature of racialized groups, 13 then they will better be able to fight against the â€Å"hierarchical† and â€Å"inegalitarian† (p. 107) assumptions inherent in racial thinking. This is partly because racial identity then becomes in some way a matter of choice. â€Å"Whether a group is racialized is a matter of its treatment by the larger society. Whether the group takes on a self-identity as a race is a different matter† (p. 148). In recognizing their racialized treatment, rather than believing themselves defined by an immutable racial identity, individuals who are members of racialized groups can decide how to respond. Will they embrace their racialized identity, as those do who proudly join the Asian- American club, volunteer with La Raza, or wear t-shirts proclaiming â€Å"It’s a BLACK thing — you wouldn’t understand† or â€Å"Hot Latina Mama†? Will they reject it, declaring â€Å"that’s not who I am† and/or trying to assimilate? Or will they try to subvert it in some way, say by reclaiming the term â€Å"nigger† (or â€Å"queer† in the [non-racial] case of gays) and defiantly using it as a term of affection for others inside the group? By choosing the extent and nature of their racial identities, Blum seems implicitly to be arguing, individuals and groups are empowered; whether they choose to appropriate, reject, or subvert the characterizations thrust upon them by racializing others, the very act of choosing liberates them from the racialist (and racist) assumptions of innate difference, inferiority, and/or stigma. Two substantial bodies of work in social psychology, however, cast serious doubt on this claim. The first is system justification theory — the theory that â€Å"psychological processes contribut[e] to the preservation of existing social arrangements even at the expense of personal and group interest† (Jost and Banaji 1994: 1). The second is the notion of â€Å"stereotype threat† — the idea that in certain situations (those posing â€Å"stereotype threat†), members of stigmatized groups worry about confirming a negative stereotype about their group through their performance on a task, and then, precisely because of this anxiety, end up performing worse on 14 the task than they otherwise would (and than others do) — thus paradoxically performing true to negative stereotype (see Steele and Aronson 1995; Steele 1997). I will address each in turn. According to system justification theory, people implicitly support the status quo, including hierarchy differences between low- and high-status groups, even when they are members of low-status groups, and even when they reject the distinctions on a conscious level. Thus, in studies done under both â€Å"authentic† and experimental conditions, women ask for lower wages than men do for the same work (or they work 25 percent longer than men if offered the same wage (Cite forthcoming)); individuals rate even initially unwanted outcomes (such as tuition increases, or a member of the opposing political party winning an election) more desirable the more likely they are to occur (Kay et al.2002); And they rationalize the legitimacy of existing inequalities (e. g. , if told that graduates of University B earn more on average than University A graduates, University A students will rate University B students as being smarter and better writers than they; if told the opposite, however, then University A students will express the opposite prejudice and rate themselves higher (cite forthcoming)). Even individuals who explicitly articulate egalitarian beliefs tend to demonstrate moderate to strong implicit attitudinal biases toward higher-status groups (whites, young people, men); this is true regardless of the individual’s own group membership(s) (Greenwald and Banaji 1995; Banaji 2001). In other words, individuals internalize prejudice, discrimination, racism, and/or oppression (Jost and Banaji 1994; Jost et al. 2002; Kay et al. 2002). â€Å"[M]embers of disadvantaged groups internalize negative stereotypes and evaluations of their own group, to at least some degree† (Jost et. al. 2002: 598). Thus, even if people know that they are members of a group that is treated (merely) as if â€Å"there were inherent and immutable differences between them; as if certain somatic characteristics marked the presence of significant characteristics of mind, emotion, and 15 character; and as if some were of greater worth than others† (Blum 2002: 147), they are still likely to believe, subconsciously at least, that these are accurate assessments of their group membership. It takes a great deal of inner strength to stand up to stigma, discrimination, and prejudice. Even those who consciously reject racialist presumptions may respond differently subconsciously. This may be because of internalized oppression, as discussed above. But it may also be a result of rational adjustments in motivation or expectations. Knowing that one â€Å"is discriminated against, stigmatized, or inherits a history of racial† disadvantage (p. 177) may very well (and rationally) lead one to adopt a presumption of disadvantage — a belief that one’s effort will not be rewarded because of on-going discrimination and racism, and hence a reduction in effort, motivation, and/or aspirations. There is clear evidence of both effort reduction (Stone 2002) and aspiration reduction even among people who consciously reject stereotypes, such as women who profess a liking for mathematics (Nosek et al. 2002). This lowering of expectations is clearly compounded if individuals accept, whether implicitly or explicitly, the idea that they really are inferior in some way (as system justification theory suggests). Furthermore, as Claude Steele’s acclaimed work on â€Å"stereotype threat† shows, there are significant psychological and performative costs even simply in knowing that one is a member of a group that is perceived in a negative light. For example, research over the past few years has consistently shown that black students do worse on verbal tests if told the test is a measure of ability than they do if they are told the test is non-diagnostic (Steele 1997); the same is true for women’s performance on math tests (Keller 2002). Similarly, white students do worse than controls on tests of athletic skills if told that the their performance will indicate their â€Å"natural athletic ability,† but black students do worse if told their performance indicates their â€Å"sports 16 intelligence† (Stone, et. al. 1999). This response to â€Å"stereotype threat† is evident even among very young children (ages six to ten): children above seven years old demonstrate high levels of stereotype consciousness (awareness of others’ stereotypes about various groups), and children who are members of stigmatized groups perform worse when they think they are being measured along stereotypic lines than they do on the exact same test when their stereotype awareness (and hence sense of stereotype threat) is not activated (McKown 2002). These results pose a serious challenge, I believe, to Blum’s claims about the practical import of his moral philosophy. Although it is true that this research has all been done under conditions of â€Å"race† rather than â€Å"racialized groups† being salient (insofar as â€Å"racialized groups† has not become a popular or widespread term), it strikes me as being highly unl.   

ICC essays

ICC essays How would you characterize the contemporary international political system? Today no matter where you live, you are threatened by global environmental changes, spread of infectious disease, opportunities and dislocations associated with the globalization of the economy and human security. We are affected by global events no matter were we live. Ex: September 11, was a threat to our safety as humans and we are still feeling the repercussions now everywhere in the world. This has developed into a complex situation. As time passes, topics in politics that are coming more into the light are those of environment, human rights, and poverty. The current course of politics has been toward expansion and financial crisis like the Asian stock market and the recent American stock market crisis. It seem that the stability of the world economy is in shambles. People are still freaked out over September 11 attacks. I think that event will hinder our productivity and security issues for many more years to come. The line between rich and poor is ever increasing and will continue because of the extremities of power in both classes. I think that as the gap widens between both rich and poor, the middle class will cease to exist as we know it. I think that population control is another topic that needs to be seriously addressed. There are too many people in the world and not enough food to feed them all. I think that the political system is following a both convergent and divergent path right now. There are both present in our system and evident in certain aspects in our society. Both are happening simultaneously and both factors are felt differently for different societies across the world. There is a convergence of economic, technological and communication aspects. As well as there is an increasing independence between states, growth of IGO and NGO and awareness and action of environmental issues. Also there is a convergence o ...

Critical Study of developing battery technology The WritePass Journal

Critical Study of developing battery technology Introduction Critical Study of developing battery technology IntroductionConclusionRelated Introduction The battery technology for electric vehicles is constantly improving the capability of its charging and lifespan, enabling a longer-lasting battery to be applied to a potential electric car avoiding the replacement problem (Bernardes, Espinosa Tenorio, 2004). Various types of batteries has been employed through the history of electric vehicles, varying from lead-acid as   in the first electric automobile to the Lithium-ion (Li-ion) cell technology in the modern era improving in range and efficiency, remaining environmentally friendly. According to Tesla Motors, â€Å"The battery pack in the Tesla Roadster is the result of innovative systems engineering and 20 years of advances in Lithium-ion cell technology†. The Li-ion cell provides power efficiency, reliability for the electric vehicles. However, there are two types of Li-ion batteries one uses a liquid or gel for the electrolyte, and the other type uses a solid polymer making a dual role as separator and electrolyte. (Fuhs, 2009) Conclusion The high-powered Tesla vehicles are supplemented by a series of Li-ion batteries shown in fig: 1.7, in addition the set of batteries are enclosed in a single steel casing designed to withstand considerable condition in the vehicle. As one of the main benefit of the structure pack, it works similar as the radiator system of ICE. It serves to maintain the appropriate temperature level of each cell through a liquid coolant which enables effective heat transfer within the system. Whenever the battery temperature rises above a set threshold, the system releases a liquid coolant in the pack to stabilise the temperature in extreme condition (Tesla Motors, 2010).

Is Bullying in School a Normal Part of Life Essay

Is Bullying in School a Normal Part of Life - Essay Example Based on the nature, bullying can be classified into three major categories; physical, verbal and social. Even though only the physical bullying results in physical injury to the victim, verbal and social bullying can cause tremendous emotional problems to the victim. Majority of the schools all over the world are places in which all types of bullying are taking place. Some people argue that bullying in schools is a normal activity and it is necessary to make the teenagers physically and mentally stronger. Such people are of the view that bullying can prepare students to undertake stronger challenges in future. On the other hand critics believe that uncontrolled bullying will cause tremendous damages to the physical and mental development of the victims and therefore it should be prohibited in school campuses. â€Å"Education Minister Christ Carter announced that New Zealand schools will be required to have concrete measures to put a stop to bullying, or at least to deal with itâ₠¬  (New Zealand Government Focuses On School Bullying). (New Zealand Government Focuses On School Bullying) Current generation, especially the teenage generation are more aggressive in nature than the generations in the past. Media like internet and television play an important role in injecting aggressive behaviour among teenage community. Teenagers do not have the ability to segregate between the good and evil. They don’t have the maturity to think about the consequences of their actions. Sex and violence related contents in media motivate the teenagers to imitate those things in their real life. They don’t have the wisdom to segregate fiction from facts. Thus physical encounters among teenage community are growing day by day in schools. School shooting incidences are quiet regular in America like western countries because of the easy access of gun like dangerous weapons to the teenage community. In short, physical bullying can result even in loss of lives and there fore it should be avoided at any cost in school compounds. Verbal bullying refers to the act of teasing. It is an act of teasing a mentally weaker student by a group of mentally stronger students as shown in the image below. (International Network) The victim will remain helpless when he/she faces a combined attack by a group of students. In many cases verbal bullying results in physical assaults also. In any case, it is a fact that verbal bullying can cause psychological problems to the victim. Victims of bullying may loss interest in studies and other daily activities. Such people will try to avoid the company of others and their academic performances could be seriously damaged as a result of verbal bullying. According to Dune et al (2010), â€Å"Bullying, aggression and other forms of violence in schools can blight student experiences of formal education and their abilities to make the best of the opportunities they have† (Dune et al, p.1). Social bullying is an act of iso lation. In this case, the offenders form a group and prevent the victim from interacting normally with others. Moreover, offenders may fabricate stories against the victim and spread

Doing business with north Americans Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Doing business with north Americans - Essay Example As a result, the major economic activities in Northern America can be traced back to the historical origins of most inhabitants of this continent. The North American region, which consists of countries such as United States and Canada, opened doors to civilization through diversity brought by the various cultural groups that immigrated into the area. Since then diversification and economic growth has been evident even in the modern day through institutions and trade agreements such as the North America Free trade agreement. Nevertheless, development in North America is gradually being hampered by disparities between North and South America (Moran et al, 514). With regard to Canada, Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, Native Americans who inhabited the region had thrived through their culture since they owned the land. However, most of them currently live below the poverty level since they have lost most of the property to the late inhabitants and the governments in the region (Moran et al, 520). As a result, the government in Canada has been increasing its efforts compensate the affected Native Americans. Moreover, the Priv ate sector has increased its efforts over the years to enhance business with Native Americans in Canada. This has involved enlightening the Native Americans on modern business practices and while allowing them to hold on to their tradition (Moran et al, 520). On the other hand, another business perspective with regard to North America can be based on the United States. United States is centrally located in North America â€Å"south of Canada and North of Mexico† (Moran et al 526). Unlike Canada, the terrain and climate in United States varies significantly among regions. However, the historical influx of inhabitants in America is similar to that of Canada that in this case contributes to the diversity in